Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, of course you can use the word 'side' here.:policeman:

Phew! For once, we side.

Actually, can we not agree that if Neil entered Buck's Row at the precise moment that Crossmere and Paul reached the top of the street, then Neil would have been roughly 35 yards from the pair when they passed Thomas St? This is because Neil would have been going at a steady plod, whereas Crossmere and Paul would have been hurrying along because they were both late. If they were walking roughly twice as fast as Neil, then they would have walked the 70 yards to the top of the street in the same time that Neil walked 35 yards to the junction with Buck's Row. Hence when they passed Thomas St, Neil would have been roughly 35 yards away.

Itīs a logical construction that works for me - roughly. But I do think myself that the carmen had turned their corner some period of time before Neil turned his.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Fish

Well, I was arguing against Eighty Eighter's suggestion that Crossmere may not have lied to Mizen about being wanted by a policeman, if he actually glanced over his shoulder and saw Neil some yards behind him. As you know, I doubt if Crossmere lied to Mizen, but not because of Eighty Eighter's argument.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: I've read what you say Fisherman but I still consider it be a weak case from the account you have provided. I understood Andy Griffiths to have been saying no more than that Cross would be a person of interest to a modern murder inquiry, which I do agree with, while Scobie referred to a "prima facie case" and you and I have discussed this previously. Ultimately though I'm not swayed by opinions offered by commentators for the purposes of televisual entertainment because I like to consider the evidence for myself.

Fair enough. You were not there when the docu was shot, so you donīt know just how good a case Griffiths thought we had. I do, however.

On that, I would just pick up on a couple of factual points:

1. Yes, Cross and Paul might have been separated briefly so that Paul wasn't in ear shot when Cross mentioned the policeman to Mizen but you still can't ignore the fact that Paul said that he "and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman...and told him what they had seen" while Mizen said that when Cross spoke to him "he was accompanied by another man".

... and you canīt ignore that the coroner had to ask about whether there was any other man present. Paul played a very inferior role, thatīs a given to me.

2. You say, "I noticed how Lechmere said that he informed Mizen that the woman could well be dead - whereas a baffled Mizen said that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide.". That's not quite right. Lechmere's evidence was that he told Mizen that the woman could be "dead or drunk". He specifically told the coroner that "he did not think the woman had been murdered". So why would Mizen have been "baffled" at no mention of murder or suicide? Cross never claimed he said either thing! Mizen's evidence was that he was told that a woman was lying in Buck's Row. This is broadly consistent with Lechmere's account that he did not really know what was wrong with the woman. I find it difficult to see any real significance in this point.

Mizen was obviously baffled because the carman admitted to having been sent on by another PC. And that would - to Mizens mind - have meant that that other PC had seen what had happened and sent the carmen looking for a colleague. And still, Lechmere only spoke of a woman on the broad of her back!

If you are seeking for proof of murder in small points they need to be very good ones! I do look forward to reading the book when it comes out though.

So do I!

The best,
Fisherman

[eighty-eighter]

Hi Robert,
I don't have a particular argument as such, I'm just bouncing ideas of fellow theorists, and at the end of the day that's all we really are. I take every theory of a suspect seriously though, I think its only fair to do that when a researcher has put so much time, effort and expense into it. Unless of course its pure silly season nonsense.
Like I've said before if this was a single murder then Lechmere would be down the nick before you could say "Jack the Ripper" based on his performance that night along with the rather incredible string of coincidences seemingly accompanying his every step, plus the timings and his lies/contradictions, plus of course the freshness of the slaying of Nichols in relation to his position near the body. I've now got to decide whether that was overwhelming enough to give priority over my doubts re. the remaining murders. That's for me to decide over time and I don't intend to make that decision until the book comes out and has been read and digested. But never say never.

[Fisherman]

Like I've said before if this was a single murder then Lechmere would be down the nick before you could say "Jack the Ripper" based on his performance that night along with the rather incredible string of coincidences seemingly accompanying his every step, plus the timings and his lies/contradictions.

He really should have been. But he was not what the police were looking for. So they goofed up.

The best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

>>Access to Essex Wharf buildings maybe?<<

The Essex Wharf entrance was opposite the murder site.This is where the Brady Street Dwellings would be built in 1889. So was it a building site at the time of the murder?

[The Good Michael]

That's at odds with the account by pc Mizen if the programme researchers/makers have got their evidence right, and I have no reason to doubt their version, after all they have probably gone into it in much more detail and for longer than you or I?
I believe it was pc Mizen himself who testified that Cross indeed had said that to him on that night (about there being a pc at the murder scene waiting for him). Yes Cross later denied it apparently. Depends which version you want to believe I guess. If true then Cross seemed to contradict himself for some reason, which could also be deemed odd.

Yes, you had suggested that perhaps Cross had seen a cop. He said he hadn't at the inquest, so that would be lying. Now, I don't believe Cross lied. I don't see why he would have and how he would expect Paul to go along with it. Others suggest Paul didn't hear what Cross said or didn't know what Mizen testified, but I don't buy that. Mizen was wrong.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mizen was wrong.

Mike

About what?

About Lechmere not telling him that it was a potentially serious errand?

About Lechmere being the only man that spoke to him?

About Lechmere saying that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row?

Was he wrong about one, two or all three of these matters? And what evidence do you have to support your notion?

The best,
Fisherman

[Richard Patterson]

Just briefly on Francis Thompson. Sure this suspect, being homeless, had the opportunity to be anywhere in London. He could, as has been suggested on this thread, been in Trafalgar Square, Rotten Row or in Coventry. He could have just as easily have been in Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street & Miller’s Court.

I have been told that if Charles were to choose a family name between Cross and Lechmere, it would be Lechmere because it would carry more weight. This is for being partly due to Cross’s connection to Captain Lechmere who was, ‘Horatio Nelson’s closest man’. Perhaps in the navy this is true, but in the East End, by the time of the Ripper, the name Lechmere would have been faded from history being tied to events 81 years ago. With most of those who had lived through the Napoleonic Wars either dead of old age or dying in seaside missions. The rest of the unschooled East Enders would have known only bare facts about the war. The only Nelson they would have probably been familiar with was the hotel by that name in Berner Street. Cross, the name of a policeman’s son, in contrast would have had much more influence to the man-on-the-street. Although the name may have appeared hundreds of times on official documents, that does not mean that was what he was known as to those who knew him.

Let's consider whether Cross had the opportunity (Which Thompson had) to commit these murders. The only certain fact we have on Cross is that Robert Paul found him with the body of Mary Ann Nichols. I agree that just with this fact alone it is more than reasonable to count him as a potential suspect for her murder. I also agree that is interesting that there is little doubt that the murder sites for Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were all along his route to work. I myself may have seen him a most viable suspect, if I did not already know about Thompson. The rest about Cross though as a suspect is suspect. For Cross to have killed Eddowes and Stride he would have to have veered way off course. Leaving us with a suspect who had little opportunity to have killed the 5 canonical victims. If we say Cross is the killer of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly who were along his route to work, we would have to create one or even to more murderers to account for Stride’s and Eddowe’s killing. We would have to veer off reason itself to believe that Cross would have also had found the time to court each of the 5 victims, kill them and make the mutilations. The time required would have, in the case of Kelly, been many hours. It is remarkable that some people can say Cross achieved this without being missed by his family and his place of work. The failure of the police to suspect Cross has been explained on this thread being because, ‘they goofed up’. This is a pretty big goof up considering 4 more women were killed. We also have to believe that his family, by not growing suspicious of Cross goof up too, as well as his Pickford employer.

There is nothing of course to show that Cross has anything else pointing to him being a viable suspect, such as the ability, a weapon or a motive. (Thompson has all of these) Neither is there any evidence of Cross being violent either before or after the crimes. (There is for Thompson) If we accept Cross is the Ripper we must accept that an apparently average, normal hard working, family man, inexplicably went on a killing spree. We must accept that Robert Paul, PC Mizen, and everyone else were clueless to his exploits - such a suspect for the Ripper does not resolve many of the mysteries concerning the Ripper, it multiplies them. Saying that Cross was the Ripper, like most other suspects, seems attractive at first glance, but it leaves us with a someone with perhaps one or two facts, revolving around coincidence, going for him. Everything else about Cross, such as whether he lied to police, is up for debate. The prevailing profile upon the serial killer, as given by the F.B.I, is that he is an apparently harmless, yet alluring, drifter. Of noted intelligence, he is in his twenties and feels intense isolation, preferring to kill relative strangers, near to their current area of habitation. This profile of course fits Thompson but not Cross/Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Richard Patterson: Sure this suspect, being homeless, had the opportunity to be anywhere in London. He could, as has been suggested on this thread, been in Trafalgar Square, Rotten Row or in Coventry. He could have just as easily have been in Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street & Miller’s Court.

If those were the only options, then yes.

Sadly, much as there are only a handful of murder venues, there are millions of alternatives. So the odds that Francis Thompson were at the murder spots on the given days are astronomical.

I have been told that if Charles were to choose a family name between Cross and Lechmere, it would be Lechmere because it would carry more weight. This is for being partly due to Cross’s connection to Captain Lechmere who was, ‘Horatio Nelson’s closest man’. Perhaps in the navy this is true, but in the East End, by the time of the Ripper, the name Lechmere would have been faded from history being tied to events 81 years ago.

I can assure you that the Lechmnere family was every bit as wealthy and prosperous in 1888 as it was 81 years before. The name Lechmere was - and is - tied to wealth and influence.

Cross, the name of a policeman’s son, in contrast would have had much more influence to the man-on-the-street. Although the name may have appeared hundreds of times on official documents, that does not mean that was what he was known as to those who knew him.

It is the clear implication though. Suggesting that he went by TWO names, one when speaking to the authorities and another one in the company of friends, needs corroboration since it would deviate from normal procedure. And even if you somehow managed to prove that he was Cross to his friends, it still applies that the police represented the authorities and NOT his friends. And we all know what Lechmere called himself when speaking to the authoritites!
This is a totally dead end until you have something to show for your speculations. So far, you have nothing at all. Not a scrap.

Let's consider whether Cross had the opportunity (Which Thompson had) to commit these murders.

You donīt know that Thompson had the opportunity!!! Knowing that requires that you put him on the spots, Richard. That, and nothing else, is what is having the opportunity, legally speaking. For Lechmere, we know that he had the opportunity to kill Nichols, we know that there is reason to believe that he may have had the oportunity to kill Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, and it can be reasoned that he, if he visisted his old grounds on the night of the double event, may have the opportunity in those cases too.
Reasoning that Thompson had the opportunity to kill the Whitechapel victims on account of our not knowing where he was is just about as wrong as we can get it.

The only certain fact we have on Cross is that Robert Paul found him with the body of Mary Ann Nichols. I agree that just with this fact alone it is more than reasonable to count him as a potential suspect for her murder. I also agree that is interesting that there is little doubt that the murder sites for Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were all along his route to work. I myself may have seen him a most viable suspect, if I did not already know about Thompson.

... of whom you have not a iot to tie him to any of the killings.

The rest about Cross though as a suspect is suspect. For Cross to have killed Eddowes and Stride he would have to have veered way off course. Leaving us with a suspect who had little opportunity to have killed the 5 canonical victims.

Off course? He did not go to work on the morning Stride and Eddowes were slain - it was his day off.

And Berner Street was smack, bang in the middle of his old grounds, from whence he had moved three months earlier. So Lechmere has strong ties to this area. And to boot, his mother - and his daughter - lived very nearby.

If we say Cross is the killer of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly who were along his route to work, we would have to create one or even to more murderers to account for Stride’s and Eddowe’s killing. We would have to veer off reason itself to believe that Cross would have also had found the time to court each of the 5 victims, kill them and make the mutilations. The time required would have, in the case of Kelly, been many hours.

No, it would not. Look at what he did to Eddowes in a matter of mere minutes. If we speak of many hours in Kellys case, perhaps three of them, and if Eddowes took ten minutes to cut up, then you should multiply that damage by 18! I know that on the old boards, somebody (Sam Flynn?) made a good case for Kelly having taken around half an hour to cut up.

The failure of the police to suspect Cross has been explained on this thread being because, ‘they goofed up’. This is a pretty big goof up considering 4 more women were killed.

The police goofed up with Peter Sutcliffe. And pretty big too! They have goofed up innumerable times. It goes with the territory - serialists who kill strangers are hard to catch today. In 1888, it would not have been easier.

We also have to believe that his family, by not growing suspicious of Cross goof up too, as well as his Pickford employer.

If he went to work in the early mornings and came home in the evening, what was there to suspect?

There is nothing of course to show that Cross has anything else pointing to him being a viable suspect, such as the ability, a weapon or a motive. (Thompson has all of these).

Lechmere would in all probability have had a knife to cut the harnesses with in the eventof an accident. He may well have been involved in the catīs meat business, getting accustomed to carving carcasses up. And since when does a serialist need a motive - other than his wish to kill?

Neither is there any evidence of Cross being violent either before or after the crimes. (There is for Thompson) If we accept Cross is the Ripper we must accept that an apparently average, normal hard working, family man, inexplicably went on a killing spree.

Like Ridgway, Kürten and Armstrong, you mean?

We must accept that Robert Paul, PC Mizen, and everyone else were clueless to his exploits - such a suspect for the Ripper does not resolve many of the mysteries concerning the Ripper, it multiplies them.

Mizen was not clueless. He noticed that he was told that another PC awaited him, and he remarked that the carman had said nothing about a murder or a suicide.

Saying that Cross was the Ripper, like most other suspects, seems attractive at first glance, but it leaves us with a someone with perhaps one or two facts, revolving around coincidence, going for him.

That would depend on how you count. I make it a large number of "coincidences" - which you can find on the threads.

Everything else about Cross, such as whether he lied to police, is up for debate.

He IS debated - luckily.

The prevailing profile upon the serial killer, as given by the F.B.I, is that he is an apparently harmless,

Like Panzram?

yet alluring, drifter.

Like Armstrong?

Of noted intelligence,

Like Fred West?

he is in his twenties

Like Albert Fish?

and feels intense isolation,

Like Rodney Alcala?

preferring to kill relative strangers, near to their current area of habitation.

Like Lechmere?

This profile of course fits Thompson but not Cross/Lechmere.

The world is complex, Richard. It will not adjust to a FBI profile. As you can see above, this embarrasing argument is easier to take apart than a Lego toy.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

About Lechmere saying that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row?

this one. Cross is corroborated by Paul because he wouldn't have lied with Paul present (which he was) and gotten away with it.

Mike

[eighty-eighter]

The next bit that puzzles me is according to Cross he saw Nichols body then very soon after Paul arrived on the scene, meaning that Paul was walking the same route as Cross but presumably something like 30-40 yards behind, at least judging by what Cross had said:
Cross only had time to see what he thought might be a tarp at the entrance to Browns Yard, he came off the pavement (on right side in direction he was travelling) and went to the middle of the road and then identified the "bundle" as a woman lying on her back, at which point he was aware of Paul bearing down on him and turned to interact with him.
Now surely if that had been the case then Paul would have been aware of Cross' footsteps ahead of him the whole time? At least in the relevant part of his journey we are discussing. That distance in the quiet of an East End 1888 back-street in the wee hours is nothing. We know it wasn't windy, so why didn't Paul testify that he could hear somebody walking in boots just 30-40 yards ahead?
Add that to the alleged "missing time" attested by Cross' estimate for leaving home (was there anywhere in that area that wasn't within hearing distance of a clock-tower bell?) and taking so long to walk the distance to the murder site (the missing 7-9 minutes was it?), and I think that raises even more suspicions over his account.

[Fisherman]

this one. Cross is corroborated by Paul because he wouldn't have lied with Paul present (which he was) and gotten away with it.

Mike

It all comes tubling down when you say that Paul was present, Mike.

We donīt know.

We DO know that Mizen said that ONE man came up to him and spoke to him.

We DO know that the Echo said "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

We DO know that the coroner had to ask about Paul, since Mizen did not mention him on his own accord.

Paul was present. But was his presence of a character that guaranteed that he heard what Lechmer told the PC?

No, there can be no such guarantee, and the evidence suggests that Paul was not in close proximity, nor parttaking in the discussion.

How do you explain that Mizen never corrected Neil if he was NOT lied to? Why does he not say "So you have found the body too?" at the crime site? WHy did he not tell his superiors that Neil was wrong at the first inquest day and in his paper interview?

Why are these things in line with a lie, but NOT with no lie? And why do you choose to ignore it?

And what about the oter two points?

Why did Lechmere - according to Mizen - misinform the inquest by stating that both he and Paul spoke to the PC?

Why did Lechmere - according to Mizen - misinform the inquest by claiming that he had told the PC that the woman in Bucks Row could be dead?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Paul was present. But was his presence of a character that guaranteed that he heard what Lechmer told the PC?


And what about the oter two points?

Why did Lechmere - according to Mizen - misinform the inquest by stating that both he and Paul spoke to the PC?

Why did Lechmere - according to Mizen - misinform the inquest by claiming that he had told the PC that the woman in Bucks Row could be dead?

You asked me which of the points I was talking about. You didn't ask me to address other points, but I will and you will refute them because you are blinded, while I can see pretty clearly. Cross said that they spoke to Mizen because he and Paul were together. That's quite clear. If they were together (and they were) it addresses your first point about Paul being in earshot of everything. This is all quite simple. 2 down. The 3rd point is irrelevant. During Cross and Paul's conversation when they both discovered the body together and not the tarpaulin that Cross surmised, they thought she was dead or drunk.

Mike

[Robert]

It's looking like according to Fish, Paul was dead or drunk.